The first of the papers did not measure paleogravity, it measured PALEOMAGNETISM. If you don’t know the difference, we’re in real trouble. Only measurements of paleogravity can deduce the size of the Earth in the past. That eliminates that link.
And Laze confirms once again that he did not read the paper, and that he also has limited understanding of the implications of findings such as these.
The angle of the crystals they use to measure the strength of paleomagnetism is dependent on the
local gravitational force. The local gravitational force is dependent (obviously) on the amount and distribution of mass below a test site. From this we can come up with three simple hypothesis:
1) If the mass of the earth increased/decreased over time, this would be apparent as
universal changes in paleomagnetism, appearing as a larger/smaller radius, or
2) If the earth had periods of time with areas having significantly different levels of surface gravity, than we would see this as
local differences in the paleomagitism measured at different points on the earth, or
3) If the earths surface gravity has been continious over time, this will be apparent in the form of a constant G, and thus constant radius.
As you can see in table 1 of the paper, no significant variations of paleomagnitism were seen in
any of the >200 test sites, which are scattered all over the globe. Ergo, there was never any significant deviations in the local gravitational fields at those sample locations.
In fact, this paper puts a cap on the size of shifts that could have occurred, as larger shifts would have been identifiable through the statistical noise. This particular paper puts this at 4-7%, depending on the geological period under question (Table 2).
The second link is still not working. When I copy/paste the URL at the top of the screen, nothing happens.
Works for me, try clicking
this link.Basically, this paper analyzed the paleoorbit of the moon, using tidal deposits as proxy data for the period of rotation and height of tides:
"Hence the thickness of successive laminae deposited by tidal currents can be a proxy tidal record, with paleotidal and paleorotational values being determined by analysis of measured records of lamina and cycle thickness. "
Tidal heights are determined solely by the ratio of lunar gravity to local gravity. The higher the earths gravitational pull at the measurement site, the smaller the tide.
Once again, was your model correct they would have seen changes outside of those caused by the moons regression, as their sample site was part of pangea. This is not the case (see table 1, Figs 10 & 15).
If you go back and reread your statements, even though you used the term COR, you were solving the problem as though the Earth were not rotating or rotating at a very slow rate, like the moon. In other words, you were ignoring the moment of inertia (i.e., the rotational mass) of the core(s)/Pangea.
Really? Perhaps you can show me exactly where I made that assumption.
Oh wait, you cannot show me where I made that assumption, as I never did. This is simply yet another excuse by you to not address the faults in your math.
My example for a 54% change in surface gravity on Pangea (i.e., it would have been 54% of current “g”) was based on a shift of the center of mass of the Earth from the current center by a distance of one sixth of the diameter of the Earth. Considering we would be dealing with the shift of the inner core, outer core and the densest part of the mantle, I don’t find this to be unobtainable.
And yet, a basic understanding of the universal law of gravitation shows it to be impossible. I'd point out again that I solved using the law of gravity, to calcluate the delta (change) in Fg, and I was unable to replicate your result
and you've been unable to show my math to be wrong.
And yes, my r^2/d^2 (remember ‘d’ is not diameter but distance from Pangea’s COM to the new COM of the Earth) was derived from Newton’s law.
And, as I pointed out several times before, your formula only gives the correct answer if you shift the
enter mass of the earth, meaning it is completely useless for measuring the gravitational shift when only the core moves.
I'd also point out that your formula ignores all of the things you claim I ignore - rotation of the earth, distortion of the core, etc.
Bryan
